AuthorTopic: Big Bang v Big Man (or Woman) (Read 13584 times)

A pet subject of mine.I just can't accept that the universe was created by a supernatural being (ie God). (aside from the logic, what was he doing before? And after? Why did he bother? Who/what made God?)But then again I find the whole Big Bang thing hard to swallow. (where did the atoms come from? What was there before? Don't get me started on multiverses).I can think of only two answers:a) some things are just to big for our ape brains to comprehend (though this doesn't mean God wins by default.)b) the universe has always been here, constantly expanding, imploding and starting over again.

I always like to think about this and keep falling back to the same ideas.

The Bible and all the stories in it are fake and that includes the son of god, The Bible to me was written at a time when there was no law and no one cared for there actions, robbing,raping and murder and it made people think about there actions.

When you see these worlds hairiest men photo's it makes you think there is every chance that we evolved from monkeys and that we could have came together from one huge bang, but then i think to myself everything is to perfectly planned.

Everything on this earth has a purpose, from us having 4 fingers and a thumb on each hand to be able to hold things to reproducing. If everything happened by accident then why one man and one woman with reproductive organs it all seems a little too thought out also We are the just the right distance from the sun and the moon for plant life and not be fried alive ? could be coincidence but when they all start to add up it seems a little organized , So what i believe is yes there was no Adam and Eve and we werent the first to inhabit the earth and yes we came from a huge bang but that bang wasn't accidental and someone planned it.

I also believe in the heaven and hell thing, with our life on earth as our purgatory where we are being judged.

Logged

BlueMeanie

B) is the most logical answer (to me at least) of the two you give. Personally I've of the opinion that there are a multitude of universes, and ours is just one of them. Our universe may be just another 'galaxy' in the grand scheme of things. But where does the grand scheme start and end?

I think it's impossible for the layman to comprehend some of the stuff that goes through the minds of theoretical scientists. Infinity, for instance, time and space etc. My brain hurts already.

I'm also of the opinion (totally unfounded though it may be) that there is a missing link somewhere in history. The Aztecs where able to do things far in advance of anyone for thousands of years to come. Where did this knowledge come from. If you believe Erich Von Daniken, beings came from outer space to teach them. Personally I think that's a load of tosh. So how did they do it?

I think Erich VD is an oppotunist who saw a chance to make some cash. None of his theories stand up to any logic and he has been completely discredited..There's quite a few examples of technology being abandoned or misused. The ancient Greeks had a very workable steam engine - trouble was they never thought to use it as an energy source and instead used it to blow steam on stage during plays. The Babylonians (I think) had primitive batteries, use unknown, but probaly for burnishing (?) copper. If aliens showed them how (which the fringe believe) then they were pretty stupid, because you'd need hundreds of them to power a single light bulb (which they didn't have anyway.)You and I couldn't make an arrow head out of stone, make fire or build a pyramid - because we don't need to. Conversly a Pharoah would have great difficulty working a DVD player.

Everything on this earth has a purpose, from us having 4 fingers and a thumb on each hand to be able to hold things to reproducing. If everything happened by accident then why one man and one woman with reproductive organs it all seems a little too thought out also We are the just the right distance from the sun and the moon for plant life and not be fried alive ? could be coincidence

Okay - my thoughts. Imagine two human-ape ancestors. One has 4 fingers and thumb, another has 3. Mr 4 Finger has an advantage and so produces more offspring than poor fumbling always-dropping-his-nuts Mr 3 Finger. Eventually the 3 Finger family has died out and 4 rule. Evolution isn't chance or coincidence. It's a fact that ALL populations produce variations, and its a fact that those with variations that give an advantage will out produce those that don't.It seems to be generally accepted (though not confirmed) that there are billions of planets out there. Life requires certain temperatures, elements etc to survive. Hence life flourishes here, and not on Mercury (we presume). Logic, not coincidence methinks.So many people dismiss evolution as "chance." It's not. It's a logical, observable and measurable sequence of events, no more "coincidence" than gravity.Phew

Without getting all Roscoe on you's,but doesnt it all seem a little too coincidental ? that we came about and everything our body needs to survive came also ? we need water to stay hydrated, we need vegetables and fruit for nourishment and energy , air to breath..... take away any one of those and were finished so if it was a huge bang it was a very thoughtful one. maybe a planned one ?

Without getting all Roscoe on you's,but doesnt it all seem a little too coincidental ? that we came about and everything our body needs to survive came also ? we need water to stay hydrated, we need vegetables and fruit for nourishment and energy , air to breath..... take away any one of those and were finished so if it was a huge bang it was a very thoughtful one.

Sorry - I think you're looking at it the wrong way. If any of those things weren't here then we wouldn't be. Of all the billions of planets in the universe one/some had to provide the right conditions. We know because we're here that this is one of them.That's no coincidence.

Sorry - I think you're looking at it the wrong way. If any of those things weren't here then we wouldn't be. Of all the billions of planets in the universe one/sum had to provide the right conditions. We know because we're here that this is one of them.That's no coincidence.

So in saying it isnt a coincidence are we agreeing it was an accident or just that i belive it may have been planned and yourself belives we made it because this planet was perfect for life were as the other planets just weren't ?

So in saying it isnt a coincidence are we agreeing it was an accident or just that i belive it may have been planned and yourself belives we made it because this planet was perfect for life were as the other planets just weren't ?

yes. Life exists on this planet because the conditions are right. If they weren't it wouldn't. They aren't on Mecury so it doesn't. We don't say "ooh what a coincidence" when rains falls from black clouds, because we know black clouds produce the right conditions for rain. Fluffy white ones don't. Not a hint of coincidence, chance or accident.

B) is the most logical answer (to me at least) of the two you give. Personally I've of the opinion that there are a multitude of universes,

My problem with this: I've always dismissed religion as it encounters a problem (the origins of the universe) and comes up with an answer (God) that is unprovable. Conversly I've always upheld science as producing answers that are proveable.Now science comes up with it's own answers (multiverses, string theory etc) that are also unproveable. They exist only in the minds of mathematicians. To me this is no better than religion, and does a terrible diservice in diluting science's standing.They are a possibility, but then again so is God. I'd rather go with the "we don't know right now" theory.

Logged

don't follow leaders

BlueMeanie

Now science comes up with it's own answers (multiverses, string theory etc) that are also unproveable. They exist only in the minds of mathematicians. To me this is no better than religion, and does a terrible diservice in diluting science's standing.

But hasn't science always come up with it's own answers? You need to start off with a theory, and then set about attempting to prove it. If it doesn't workout, you move on. Theories are usually based around the most likely cause/set of events/explanation for something, based on logical sense and the knowledge that we have at that time. Are they not? So scientists regularly have to make big leaps in order that they can make any sense out of anything.

But hasn't science always come up with it's own answers? You need to start off with a theory, and then set about attempting to prove it. If it doesn't workout, you move on. Theories are usually based around the most likely cause/set of events/explanation for something, based on logical sense and the knowledge that we have at that time. Are they not? So scientists regularly have to make big leaps in order that they can make any sense out of anything.

Sort of. Over to you. This is fun!

Damn - I agree. But as long as we make it clear that they are possibilities and not facts.Still - thinking of an answer then looking for the facts to prove it bothers me.It really narks me when people call evolution "Darwin's theory." It's like calling gravity "Newtons theory." Try jumping off a very tall building.Another big worry - apparently (I'm no expert) the laws that exist for big things (gravity, solidness, being able to be in only one place at a time etc) that we presumed to be universal don't seem to operate at the molecular level. For a discipline that spends its time looking for some great unifying truth (just like the church...hmmm) there seems to be a whole new set of different laws (if laws exist) going on down there. So then we can't assume that laws that exist here necessarily exist elsewhere.I need a drink.

BlueMeanie

Damn - I agree. But as long as we make it clear that they are possibilities and not facts.Still - thinking of an answer then looking for the facts to prove it bothers me.

Isn't it a bit like making a calculated guess? A scientist thinks that something is possible, or very likely, then sets about to try to prove it. They're driven in a certain direction for a reason, i.e. that there may be no other explanation. A bit like a prosecution lawyer trying to prove that someone is guilty of the crime charged. Often the police will charge someone because they are the most likely suspect when no one else fits the profile. They then set about constructing the case for.

Even if we knew who the God's creator is, we still wouldn't know who created God's creator. That's why that question has no sense. By definition, God is the only not created being. God is before the beginning of time and after the end of time, and our minds are finite to understand it. God is just the key of the existence, whatever that key is, and that's why we can't explain God. Since I know that I exist, there must be one source from where I come, and I understand that such source is God.

Personally I do believe that God is the God of the Bible. But believing in God is not just believing in God's existence, it's believing in God's message. My God is the Word that Jesus preached: Love.